Friday, 22 May 2015

The Problem with ‘Allegedly’

1.used to convey that
something is claimed to be the case or have taken place, although there is no
proof.

I’m sick of the word “allegedly.” In the context of Russia’s
involvement in the conflict in Ukraine, its nine letters just spell out
misrepresentation, confusion, and unjustified doubt.

We see “allegedly” used in Western media reports, for
instance, in conjunction with Ukraine’s claims that it has detained two Russian
soldiers from a military intelligence unit operating in Ukraine.

“We have to use ‘allegedly’, because we don’t have 100%
proof,” a Western journalist says, when asked about the use of the word when
reporting the story of the capture of the Russian soldiers.

But the problem with “allegedly” in this context is twofold
– first, it does not adequately convey the probability of the claim being true,
and second, it says nothing of the credibility of the source throwing doubt on
the claim.

“Allegedly” is a lazy word, which semantically attributes a
0.5/0.5 probability to any claim to which it is applied. It has the potential
to be abused.

To illustrate this in an absurd way, it’s quite true to say
“Allegedly, the British royal family are shape-shifting Lizard People.” Some people have actually claimed this.

But note that nothing in this claim tells us anything about
the probability of the claim being true, or about the credibility of the person
making the claim, or even their identity.

Thankfully, in this case we know from other information
available to us (well, most of us), that the claim is highly unlikely to be
true, and the person making such a claim is most probably a loonie, whose
claims do not need to be taken seriously.

But in the case of Western reporting of events in Ukraine,
such as the capture of the two Russian special operations soldiers on May 16,
the word “allegedly” is used too freely, seemingly without regard to the
probability of the claim of their capture or identity as serving Russian soldiers
being true, or to the credibility of the source of the doubt being thrown on
the claim – the Kremlin.

In fact, there is a mountain of already-available evidence
that the claim that Ukraine has captured two members of a team of Russian special
operations soldiers on its soil is true - with a probability more like
0.95/0.05.

True, the individual pieces of evidence that make up this
mountain cannot each be proved with 100% certainty to be true, but taking all
of the pieces together there is an overwhelming body of circumstantial evidence
that Russia is directly participating in the conflict in eastern Ukraine, and
this renders the “alleged” capture of two of Russia’s commandos on Ukrainian
soil very highly likely.

It should be reported as such. Not just "allegedly."

As for the credibility of the source making the counter
claim – the Kremlin – it is not adequate merely to report this counter claim
without making some reference to the credibility of the source.

It is a matter of record and fact that the Kremlin, more
specifically Russian President Vladimir Putin, has lied about Russia’s military
involvement in Ukraine (recall Crimea). There is a great deal of evidence that
the Kremlin is conducting a covert war in the east of Ukraine, in order to
destabilize the country and keep it within Russia’s orbit. So Russian denials
of the involvement of their military in the fighting in eastern Ukraine should
be reported as scarcely credible.

Thus it is quite wrong at this point to use the word
“allegedly” when reporting the recent capture of the Russian soldiers in
Ukraine – there is not actually much doubt that these soldiers are indeed
serving members of the Russian military, engaged in a Kremlin-orchestrated
covert war against Ukraine. Neither should the reader of news reports be left
in any doubt about the credibility of the Kremlin’s claims – they are not
credible, and have been proved not to be credible many times.

So drop “allegedly.” This lazy word can’t do the work needed
to properly inform news readers about what is actually happening in Ukraine.
Its flabby semantics are of use only to Kremlin propagandists.